Forgive me but I feel I must say that I disagree with the Ven. Indrajala, Ven JKhedrup and the inestimable Sherab Dorje on the issue of speaking out against injustice. The argument is presented as black and white: not speaking out is bad versus speaking out is good. However, given the nature of humans perhaps neither speaking out nor refraining from speaking out represent the only approaches to the problems of these injustices? For the sake of a not very good example, perhaps speaking out raises awareness in the liberal places but further inflames the not-so-liberal places and causes them to close ranks and dig their heels in all the more?

My point, thoguh poorly expressed, is that both sides of the argument are presenting their view as the one right solutution. Whereas I am suggesting that we should look deeper for solutions that are more appropriate and applicable to the task at hand.

Once again, apologies for disagreeing.

“Not till your thoughts cease all their branching here and there, not till you abandon all thoughts of seeking for something, not till your mind is motionless as wood or stone, will you be on the right road to the Gate.”

I never said that one should not speak out. I said that one must be aware how they speak out, be aware of the ultimate futility of trying to fix samsara, not lose sight of the workings of karma and keep in mind the impermanent nature of views.

Sherab Dorje wrote:I never said that one should not speak out. I said that one must be aware how they speak out, be aware of the ultimate futility of trying to fix samsara, not lose sight of the workings of karma and keep in mind the impermanent nature of views.

I didn't get the sense from Khedrup-la's postings that he was advocating a utopian view. Rather I think he is saying that compassion dictates that we are actively involved in resisting atrocities wherever they occur. This entails raising awareness of these global problems in our local communities and holding our governments to account when their actions are cynical and self-serving. It entails lobbying for more humane refugee policies when necessary. It most certainly entails ritual action to protect those at risk.

I agree that this is our moral imperative. I don't understand throwing up our hands and saying that it's just karma. We must do what we can.

In order to deal with those who harm us we have the Buddhas teachings. A helpful one: patience. Then it is easier to get some clarity in own mind, so that we don't lose compassion. As far as I understand by recognizing ones own defilements, as being ones own suffering, boundless compassion flows by free sail without any particular direction.

In samsara we learn how to purify/transform/transcend ( and all these words...) others mind and have/want compassion/love/joy... for oneself. Buddha thaught another way.

Whatever which religion they/we belong too, they/we are all Buddhas, temporary not seen due to our misperception. This makes as well clear that the word Buddha is not some thing like all words which truly exist and so belongs to what we call Buddhists. It is simple nature always awake, nature like it is. No any'being' is not like that.

When this philosophy becomes selective, ignoring authoritarianism and traditional values that trample on the rights of others, I decided to refer to it as neo-liberalism. It is a selective application of liberal principles according to the modern laws of identity politics and political correctness, which leads to a peculiar silence that shrilly denounces human rights abuses by some and strategically ignores them by others.

Sorry, you can't use this — neo-liberalism already has a well defined meaning. It refers to the radical free market ideology that drives corporate globalization.

The far right in the states has coined a term that might exploit to advantage for such people that you describe: libtard.

When this philosophy becomes selective, ignoring authoritarianism and traditional values that trample on the rights of others, I decided to refer to it as neo-liberalism. It is a selective application of liberal principles according to the modern laws of identity politics and political correctness, which leads to a peculiar silence that shrilly denounces human rights abuses by some and strategically ignores them by others.

Sorry, you can't use this — neo-liberalism already has a well defined meaning. It refers to the radical free market ideology that drives corporate globalization.

The far right in the states has coined a term that might exploit to advantage for such people that you describe: libtard.

Beyond what Malcolm said, you can't use a strict dictionary definition of a word to stand in for the philosophical position behind movements using similar terms. Lower case "liberal" does not equal LIberal, as in someone who is a proponent of Liberalism. The irony of course, is that hardcore "Liberals" (or anyone who strictly adheres to an ideology) is not liberal (broad-minded) at all.

Besides, we all know that upper case "Liberal" is a city in Kansas with a population of 20,000.

Libtard sounds a bit too Ann Coulter for my taste, but I do get the meaning.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

So then the question becomes this. Should Muslim nations using Sharia law or portions of it be exempt from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Since apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment according to Islamic scripture and the majority of Islamic scholars, according to the Pew Research pole posted previously?

How far should we take acceptance of others' religious beliefs? Can we tolerate the intolerant, even when it violates international standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

JKhedrup wrote:So then the question becomes this. Should Muslim nations using Sharia law or portions of it be exempt from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The "should" question is always a difficult one to answer - by whose authority "should" anyone do anything? Should carries moral or ethical judgment and who is to say whose understanding is the correct one? Or if there is even one correct understanding?

I've read numerous threads here on DW where one group of "outsiders" point out to another group what they "should" do (I think the Zen/Soto topics have had a few). How much more entrenched and problematic at a much higher level?

In answer to your question though, the UDHR is non binding, and some Muslim countries (notably Saudi Arabia) didn't sign it. Many who did probably currently disavow it as being biased against Islam and being an understanding from the Western/Judeo-Christian traditions. Not sure if all, but many of the countries following Sharia law have signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI).

Now it does seem though that there are many violations of the CDHRI that these same Muslim countries don't seem to upset about.

The thing to understand, all of these declarations, at a governmental level are power plays (either internally to make the people of a country feel good about themselves, or externally to bring pressure to bear on other countries to force them to do something, or to prevent being forced to do something, or to justify doing something to another country).

JKhedrup wrote:Since apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment according to Islamic scripture and the majority of Islamic scholars, according to the Pew Research pole posted previously?

How far should we take acceptance of others' religious beliefs? Can we tolerate the intolerant, even when it violates international standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Yes we can tolerate them as long as they confine themselves to their own country. But they don't have the right to force other countries to follow Sharia law (such as France, England, Holland, the US, or any other country that has a large Islamic community).

One of the biggest issues is that the only way some of these things will changes is if there is major dialog at a government level (or even among major religious leaders), yet the governments that could talk to the Islamic world to find a more universal interpretation of Sharia law that isn't rooted in the cultural dark ages of some of these countries, have zero credibility. For instance, the West has zero credibility, not only from a historical perspective, but even by current foreign policies and rhetoric.

Ultimately, change only comes from within. Most people living under Sharia law are okay with it. It's up to them to change it or leave. I think the US and other countries that have issues with aspects of Sharia law, or how it is implemented, could ease immigration and asylum laws to allow for people to leave those countries under Sharia law and move to countries more religiously tolerant.

When you start a post with blanket condemnations (calling everybody that does not agree with you "PC police"), go on to make unsubstaniated claims and generalisations, call other peoples opinions "crap" and then indirectly refer to the second largest religion in the world as a "turd" then you are gulity of hate speech, even if you are so blinded by your aversion that you cannot see it.

Uan thank you forposting the Cairo declaration, I will definitely read up on it, my ignoranc of it is not a good thing.

I agree name calling accomplishes nothing and should be avoided in discussions, legally in Canada you could be fined for it(though I don't think it should get you beaten up or killed, as has hapoened here in Holland for example).

But, for example, do you consider the Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie hate speech? It prevents his freedom of movement, even to his own country of birth, India. I would say putting a price on someone's head is hate speech even if based on religious belief.

Shoulds are difficult but I guess the issue here is what peopke consider an essential human right versus what is negotiable according to Cultural considerations. I do not think that people should be shackled to religion that they mayvhave simply been born into because of the fear of death or imprisonment under Apostasy laws.

One Muslim community leader who I spokevto in Toronto told me that if one follows Islam properly, it is not just a religion, it is also a political and social system. (My views are not uninformed, as I have read the Koran and spoken to several Muskim scholars).

If Dominionist Christians took over the American government (thankfully they have not), I would have some of the same concerns. The reality is, Isllam is both the government and courts in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, parts of Nigeria, parts of Afghanistan, and in many other countries some elements of it are incorporated, such as the marriage laws in Malaysia. If these laws were not under the banner of religion, people would be more likely to speak out. But since they are, it poses many problems for dialogue.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

JKhedrup wrote:But, for example, do you consider the Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie hate speech? It prevents his freedom of movement, even to his own country of birth, India. I would say putting a price on someone's head is hate speech even if based on religious belief.

Of course it is. So what? Does that justify and excuse hate speech by Buddhists?

One Muslim community leader who I spokevto in Toronto told me that if one follows Islam properly, it is not just a religion, it is also a political and social system. (My views are not uninformed, as I have read the Koran and spoken to several Muskim scholars).

Of course it is. So what? Does that justify and excuse hate speech by Buddhists?

No Greg, and I made clear above it is not acceptable. I just want to make sure we are holding to the same standards- if you agree the fatwa against Rushdie is hate speech, then we have a basis for dialogue. The crux of my argument is that when it comes to human rights and you start making exceptions due to "religious belief" you start a slippery slope.

As for the Cairo Declaration, I started with Wikipedia and am reading more sources as I go along. It has been broadly criticized in part due to the Apostasy laws I mentioned above (which, by the way, also cover idolatry, which should be of concern to Buddhists and Hindus).

Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."[7]

The CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to change their religion, as a "fundamental and nonderogable right".[7]

In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC), a number of concerns were raised that the CDHRI limits human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of expression. The statement concludes, "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."[

As for people not bringing Sharia law over to their newly chosen countries, we know this is no guarantee. It nearly passed in my home province of Ontario, Canada:

Homa Arjomand, an Iranian who organised International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, argued that the recommendations would push back Canadian law by 1,400 years.

"Our lawyers are studying the decisions of several arbitration cases and will bring them to court and expose how women are victimised by male-dominated legal decisions based on 6th-century religion and traditions."

And Shariah courts that were designated to help with family issues in the UK have been accused of discrimination:

The documentary, Secrets of Britain's Sharia Courts, was filmed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and was first aired on BBC Panorama, a long-running current affairs program, on April 8.

The undercover investigation proves what has long been suspected: namely, that Sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic Sharia law that are at odds with British law. Although Sharia rulings are not legally binding, those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.

The documentary contends that the Sharia courts, run by Muslim judges known as qadi, are putting women at risk of violence from abusive husbands by pressuring them to stay in abusive marriages

What tends to happen is that Muslim clerics will make the argument that to deny them Shariah law violates their rights to religious freedom in their newly chosen country. The ironic thing is, the most vocal opponents of the measures in both Canada and the UK are people who fled Muslim nations to flee the stifling yoke of the Shariah legal system.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

(46) In short then, whenever unfortunate sufferings We haven’t desired crash upon us like thunder, This is the same as the smith who had taken His life with a sword he had fashioned himself. Our suffering’s the wheel of sharp weapons returning Full circle upon us from wrongs we have done. Hereafter let’s always have care and awareness Never to act in nonvirtuous ways.

So then on the basis of belief in the Law of Karma, we refuse to discuss these issues, and post religious tracts? Greg that type of Buddhism is like the Jehovah's Witness type of Christianity, I am not interested.

If you don't want to comment on my arguments then that is fine, but to post tracts like that, while useful for reading, is a simply away to avoid tough questions.

If I take your view literally, then perhaps the women abused by their husbands and getting no help from the UK government due to Shariah courts in their communities should be ignored. After all, it is just the wheel of sharp weapons turning against them. The accused adulteresses being stoned too, it is the wheel of Sharp Weapons, so we should not be concerned for their Welfare or address the system that oppresses them.

HH Dalai Lama should stop speaking against the occupation and human rights abuses in Tibet as it their karma. Yes people suffer due to karma, but do we allow cause and effect to become an excuse for inaction against injustice? Or do we misuse it to speak out against some injustices but not others? That is simply cowardly.

To speak out against injustice does not indicate lack of conviction in law of cause and effet. After all, maybe the speaking out becomes another cause, a cause for change for those who are oppressed.

From the evidence of the Buddha's discourses, or suttas in the Digha Nikaya, it is clear that early Buddhists were very much concerned with the creation of social conditions favorable to the individual cultivation of Buddhist values. An outstanding example of this, in later times, is the remarkable "welfare state" created by the Buddhist emperor, Asoka (B.C. 274-236). Walpola Rahula stated the situation — perhaps at its strongest — when he wrote that "Buddhism arose in India as a spiritual force against social injustices, against degrading superstitious rites, ceremonies and sacrifices; it denounced the tyranny of the caste system and advocated the equality of all men; it emancipated woman and gave her complete spiritual freedom." (Rahula, 1978). The Buddhist scriptures do indicate the general direction of Buddhist social thinking, and to that extent they are suggestive for our own times.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama:http://www.rudyh.org/dalai-lama-quotes-quotations.htm

True compassion is universal in scope. It is accompanied by a feeling of responsibility.

It is not enough to be compassionate. You must act. There are two aspects to action. One is to overcome the distortions and afflictions of your own mind, that is, in terms of calming and eventually dispelling anger. This is action out of compassion. The other is more social, more public. When something needs to be done in the world to rectify the wrongs, if one is really concerned with benefitting others, one needs to be engaged, involved.

Please don't use Buddhist quotes to try and justify inaction, or silence on human rights abuse.

All religious systems are also political and social systems.

Even if I were to agree (which I don't necessarily), as mentioned above there are not many religious systems outside Islam which are actually running governments.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

JKhedrup wrote:So then on the basis of belief in the Law of Karma, we refuse to discuss these issues, and post religious tracts? Greg that type of Buddhism is like the Jehovah's Witness type of Christianity, I am not interested...

Even if I were to agree (which I don't necessarily), as mentioned above there are not many religious systems outside Islam which are actually running governments.

You are overreacting. I posted the specific piece because one must remember why one is suffering. That way one will not engage in the behaviour that brought about that suffering.

Your aversion to what I am saying (obviously it is striking a chord, hence the reaction) is clouding your ability to actually understand what I am saying: I am not justifying inaction, nor am I saying one must remain silent.

But your crusade against Islam is, to be honest, rather boring and completely useless, and is blinding you to other options.

(68) We have selfish desires and horrible anger Which fester inside us, we would never admit; Yet without provocation we criticize others And self-righteously charge them with faults we possess. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head Of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heart of this self-centered butcher Who slaughters our chance to gain final release.

Dharmarakshita Wheel of Sharp Weapons

"Drive All Blames Into One

A lot of people seem to get through this world and actually make quite a comfortable life by being compassionate and open - even seemingly compassionate and open. Yet although we share the same world, we ourselves get hit constantly... For instance, we could be sharing a room with a college mate, eating the same problematic food, sharing the same shitty house, having the same schedule and the same teachers. Our roommate manages to handle everything OK and find his or her freedom. We, on the other hand, are stuck with that memory and filled with resentment all the time. We would like to be revolutionary, to blow up the world. We could say the schoolteacher did it, that everybody hates us and they did it. But WHY do they hate us? That is a very interesting point....Everything is based on our own uptightness. We could blame the organization; we could blame the government; we could blame the food; we could blame the highways; we could blame out own motorcars, out own clothes; we could blame an infinite variety of things. But it is we who are not letting go, not developing enough warmth and sympathy - which makes us problematic. So we cannot blame anybody...This slogan applies whenever we complain about anything, even that our coffee is cold or our bathroom is dirty. It goes very far. Everything is due to our own uptightness, so to speak, which is known as ego holding, ego fixation. Since we are so uptight about ourselves, that makes us very vulnerable at the same time... We get hit, but nobody means to hit us - we are actually inviting the bullets....The text says "drive all blames into one". the reason you have to do that is because you have been cherishing yourself so much... Although sometimes you might say that you don't like yourself, even then in your heart of hearts you know that you like yourself so much that you're willing to throw everybody else down the drain, down the gutter. You are really willing to do that. You are really willing to let somebody else sacrifice his life, give himself away for you. And who are you, anyway?"

It actually isn't my suffering I was worried about. If I were being oppressed by Shariah or something then your arguments would hold merit-because the wheel of sharp weapons is in essence a large part about getting rid of our self-cherishing. But it is the suffering of others I am trying to bring light to- the catalyst was speaking to the Saudi man at my sister's place and hearing first hand what life was like for him in a Shariah state. This conversation led to a deep study of Shariah law and courts and their impact on human rights, as well as the conversation with the Muslim scholar in Toronto.

I am not justifying inaction, nor am I saying one must remain silent.

So what are you saying? I'm confused.... It seems whenever real facts of human rights abuse in the name of Islam are mentioned you try to either justify them using Western Imperialism (which could also be used to excuse human rights in Burma, but no one is doing that) or post tracts on self-cherishing. I don't see you doing the same in threads we have about human rights abuse in Tibet, for example.

But your crusade against Islam is, to be honest, rather boring and completely useless

Obviously you haven't read other threads in which I have posted, about the Human Rights abuse in Tibet or in this thread about withdrawal from the Middle East and sanctions for Isreali Human Rights abuse.My crusade is not against Islam itself, but the application of Islamic Jurisprudence when it tramples on people's freedom of religion, association, and so forth as I have mentioned many times. If the Dominionist Christians wielded actual power in the USA, for example, I would also speak up against it. And in other theads I have discussed the threat of fundamentalist Christian involvement in politics.

Your aversion to what I am saying (obviously it is striking a chord, hence the reaction)

I think your aversion is at equal play here- and aversion to any critical analysis of the impact of Islamic government and jurisprudence- why you feel the need to shy away from the issue of how certain aspects of Islamic theology back political and social systems which negatively impact people's human rights. It has been well documented in this thread and you choose not to engage with any of those realities.

This isn't about my suffering Greg, I am not a woman in a Shariah marriage.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

JKhedrup wrote:It actually isn't my suffering I was worried about. If I were being oppressed by Shariah or something then your arguments would hold merit-because the wheel of sharp weapons is in essence a large part about getting rid of our self-cherishing.

I wasn't talking solely about your suffering, I was talking about their suffering too. All suffering arises... wait on, I am telling a Gelug monk about the source of suffering???

So what are you saying? I'm confused.... It seems whenever real facts of human rights abuse in the name of Islam are mentioned you try to either justify them using Western Imperialism (which could also be used to excuse human rights in Burma, but no one is doing that) or post tracts on self-cherishing. I don't see you doing the same in threads we have about human rights abuse in Tibet, for example.

I didn't justify anything, I pointed out what are (obviously) some of the sources for the reactive statements of the Mullah quoted in the OP. If you want to know what I feel are answers to the problem then go back and reread my statements without putting on the grey tinted glasses.

I think your aversion is at equal play here- and aversion to any critical analysis of the impact of Islamic government and jurisprudence- why you feel the need to shy away from the issue of how certain aspects of Islamic theology back political and social systems which negatively impact people's human rights. It has been well documented in this thread and you choose not to engage with any of those realities.

Wrong. I did not, at any point, say that a number of your claims about the nature of shariah law are illegitimate. I just fail to say what your crusade will acheive, I fail to see any positive outcomes from this line of action.

The funniest and most ironic part of this conversation though, is that you have accused me of being a liberal, when everything I have quoted to justify my stance is from Buddhism, whereas you are the one going on about suffrage, human rights, freedom of religion, etc... and quoting from charters, etc... and all of these happen to be the epitome of poltical liberalism.

This isn't about my suffering Greg, I am not a woman in a Shariah marriage.

This is about everybody's suffering. If I remember correctly one of the first examples you gave was about you being accosted by a stranger about the behaviour of Buddhists because you were wearing Buddhist monks robes. How does your behaviour differ from the behaviour of the stranger that accosted you? Don't bother telling me that you are justified and he was not...

I wasn't talking solely about your suffering, I was talking about their suffering too. All suffering arises... wait on, I am telling a Gelug monk about the source of suffering???

Thanks Greg for the lesson of suffering. It is not the tracts themselves that I object to,but the context in which you were using them. Which is in essence to try and stop any criticism of Islamic Sharia and the problems it poses. If you posted the same extensive tracts in other threads about human rights abuse I would be more open to your claimed motivation.

Trying to work to secure a better future for people does not deny the Truth of the Origin of suffering. The quotes from HH Dalai Lama and others confirm several well respected Buddhist leaders are on board with this. If you read HHDL's quote he mentions the aspect of conquering the delusions which are ultimately the source of suffering, but also engaging when there are problems in the world.

This is about everybody's suffering. If I remember correctly one of the first examples you gave was about you being accosted by a stranger about the behaviour of Buddhists because you were wearing Buddhist monks robes. How does your behaviour differ from the behaviour of the stranger that accosted you? Don't bother telling me that you are justified and he was not...

Bad example.

Firstly, I mentioned that I wished Burmese who perpetrated the Human Rights abuses would think about how this impacted the safety of Buddhists in other places earlier in the thread, for example, how I was accosted but more importantly how vulnerable minorities like the Tibetans were stabbed.

How does your behaviour differ from the behaviour of the stranger that accosted you Don't bother telling me that you are justified and he was not

Secondly, we are having a conversation about Islam where both perspectives are allowed to state their various views, not a one-sided shouting match at one person from a person off the street.

Thirdly, I would never, EVER, walk up to a woman in hijab or a man with a Muslim beard and ask them to answer for human rights abuses perpetrated due to Shariah etc. in Muslim-run governments. I especially would not walk off the street and begin shouting at them publicly in a coffee shop. It makes people feel unsafe and does not lead to any dialogue. It would also just be stupid, for all I know they may be against those human rights abuses. I don't judge people by what they wear and am against the banning of hijab by the French govt. for example.

Your comparison is far-fetched at best. If I had accosted a Muslim in the street, then your comparison would hold water. As it is, it doesn't make much sense.

I just fail to say what your crusade will acheive, I fail to see any positive outcomes from this line of action.

It is not a crusade, funny that you choose that word. What is your objection to my line of action? I am providing information so that human rights abuse can be brought to light, the same way I have in several threads about Tibet where I pointed to flaws in the Chinese political system. You did not bother to bring up objections then. Information may get people to speak up about human rights abuse in these regimes, and perhaps even save the lives of women and religious minorities.

The funniest and most ironic part of this conversation though, is that you have accused me of being a liberal, when everything I have quoted to justify my stance is from Buddhism, whereas you are the one going on about suffrage, human rights, freedom of religion, etc... and quoting from charters, etc... and all of these happen to be the epitome of poltical liberalism.

Greg I am a Liberal, or at least used to consider myself one until the rules of being a Liberal in good standing become so complicated I completely disengaged from any political discussion for over three years. I accused you of being a neo-Liberal (which Malcolm said I cannot use, I am still looking for a new word to describe this moral schizophrenia.), but basically, a Liberal who chooses to call out some human rights abuse and not others. Who denounces Isreali human rights abuse but remains silent or quotes Wheel of Sharp Weapons when people speak about those abuses in Islamic regimes.

I am a Liberal who thinks the same standards should apply to all- human rights according to the charter (which is not half bad if you had read it), should be applied universally across the board. I am a Liberal who thinks that religious legal traditions should not be suitable basis for refusing to apply the Human Rights which I and other religious practitioners benefit from every day.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin